Loudoun :
Fairfax Underground
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
School Board recommends revised technology plan, next board will make final decision
Posted by:
Loudoun County News Update
()
Date: November 20, 2011 08:10PM
School Board recommends revised technology plan, next board will make final decision
Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 by Andrew Sharbel
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/school_board_recommends_revised_technology_plan_next_board_will_make_fi123/
Loudoun County’s School Board voted Nov. 15 to accept a revised Technology Plan with a 6-2-1 vote, with Joseph Guzman (Sugarland Run) and Bob Ohneiser (Broad Run) opposed and Robert DuPree (Dulles) absent.
The plan the School Board approved is different than the one that was presented to them on June 28.
Under the revised plan, the technology aspect of the budget will cost a projected $40,748,211 million for fiscal year 2013, which is only a $1.6 increase from the $39,129,488 million spent in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
The decision to revise the plan was recommended by Chairman John Stevens (Potomac) after speaking with Vice-Chairman Priscilla Godfrey (Blue Ridge), Loudoun County Public Schools Superintendent Edgar Hatrick and LCPS Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Sharon Ackerman following the Nov. 8 elections.
“After last week’s elections and speaking with Ms. Godfrey, Dr. Hatrick and Ms. Ackerman, I asked that the technology plan be revised to give a little more time before adoption of some of the elements that many folks who campaigned for the School Board over the past few months have expressed some skepticism about,” Stevens said. “We want to give them the opportunity to review this information and make a decision on their own and not give the sense that this board is trying to push something forward.
“I want to make clear that the action of this board tonight is to provide instruction to the Superintendent on how to put together his budget proposal for next year,” Stevens added. “That budget proposal for next year will then go to the next board, so this is a recommendation going forward and not a binding vote of what the school board will spend over the next few years.”
According to Ackerman, the Virginia Department of Education requires each school division to submit a technology plan at five-year intervals in the template that is provided by the state.
“Documentation of the School Board’s approval must be submitted to the Virginia Department of Education at this time,” Ackerman said. “Because there are remaining questions about the implementation of the proposed plan, staff is recommending the approval of the revised Technology Plan for 2010-2015.
“The revised plan continues for the fiscal year 2013 budget [with] only those actions that maintain the current technology plan. The revised plan delays for an additional year the consideration of providing one on one devices for staff and students,” she said. “This added year for consideration of the proposed plan will allow new School Board members to have time to be briefed on the plan in order to establish a course of action for the continued integration of instructional technology through 2015.”
Ohneiser felt the plan should be tabled until the next School Board comes into office, but his motion died when it did not receive a second.
“I am not going to support it, not because I am not into technology, but because we are making a commitment to significantly adjust manpower [and] significantly adjust professional development. There is insufficient justification of the replacement of textbooks. There is no involvement of the teaching staff as part of the development of curriculum content,” Ohneiser said. “A lot of the things we’ve suggested or I’ve suggested were really ignored and frankly I challenge the urgency of the vote because we are a year into the five year program before we were given the information to vote on, which basically means right after we approved the promethean boards, all of a sudden we had a technology plan put in front of us, so I am not supportive of what we are being presented.”
Guzman also felt it should be left to the next board.
“I don’t think this is properly gestated because it involves huge commitments, so I think we should table it or reject it,” Guzman said.
Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 by Andrew Sharbel
http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/school_board_recommends_revised_technology_plan_next_board_will_make_fi123/
Loudoun County’s School Board voted Nov. 15 to accept a revised Technology Plan with a 6-2-1 vote, with Joseph Guzman (Sugarland Run) and Bob Ohneiser (Broad Run) opposed and Robert DuPree (Dulles) absent.
The plan the School Board approved is different than the one that was presented to them on June 28.
Under the revised plan, the technology aspect of the budget will cost a projected $40,748,211 million for fiscal year 2013, which is only a $1.6 increase from the $39,129,488 million spent in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
The decision to revise the plan was recommended by Chairman John Stevens (Potomac) after speaking with Vice-Chairman Priscilla Godfrey (Blue Ridge), Loudoun County Public Schools Superintendent Edgar Hatrick and LCPS Assistant Superintendent for Instruction Sharon Ackerman following the Nov. 8 elections.
“After last week’s elections and speaking with Ms. Godfrey, Dr. Hatrick and Ms. Ackerman, I asked that the technology plan be revised to give a little more time before adoption of some of the elements that many folks who campaigned for the School Board over the past few months have expressed some skepticism about,” Stevens said. “We want to give them the opportunity to review this information and make a decision on their own and not give the sense that this board is trying to push something forward.
“I want to make clear that the action of this board tonight is to provide instruction to the Superintendent on how to put together his budget proposal for next year,” Stevens added. “That budget proposal for next year will then go to the next board, so this is a recommendation going forward and not a binding vote of what the school board will spend over the next few years.”
According to Ackerman, the Virginia Department of Education requires each school division to submit a technology plan at five-year intervals in the template that is provided by the state.
“Documentation of the School Board’s approval must be submitted to the Virginia Department of Education at this time,” Ackerman said. “Because there are remaining questions about the implementation of the proposed plan, staff is recommending the approval of the revised Technology Plan for 2010-2015.
“The revised plan continues for the fiscal year 2013 budget [with] only those actions that maintain the current technology plan. The revised plan delays for an additional year the consideration of providing one on one devices for staff and students,” she said. “This added year for consideration of the proposed plan will allow new School Board members to have time to be briefed on the plan in order to establish a course of action for the continued integration of instructional technology through 2015.”
Ohneiser felt the plan should be tabled until the next School Board comes into office, but his motion died when it did not receive a second.
“I am not going to support it, not because I am not into technology, but because we are making a commitment to significantly adjust manpower [and] significantly adjust professional development. There is insufficient justification of the replacement of textbooks. There is no involvement of the teaching staff as part of the development of curriculum content,” Ohneiser said. “A lot of the things we’ve suggested or I’ve suggested were really ignored and frankly I challenge the urgency of the vote because we are a year into the five year program before we were given the information to vote on, which basically means right after we approved the promethean boards, all of a sudden we had a technology plan put in front of us, so I am not supportive of what we are being presented.”
Guzman also felt it should be left to the next board.
“I don’t think this is properly gestated because it involves huge commitments, so I think we should table it or reject it,” Guzman said.